In http://reviews.llvm.org/D10187#183409, @theraven wrote:
> I'm also not completely sure of the semantics - I just made it work well > enough for the Solaris headers that libc++ needed to work. The changes look > fine to me though. The semantic is described here: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19205-01/819-5265/bjacu/index.html IMHO, clang implements it right; the only thing I did is fixed a corner case. > Have they been tested with the various things in compiler-rt that use this > pragma? We currently use it as a hack because clang doesn't allow you to > implement functions that have the same name as builtins (even when those > builtins are ones that need implementing by a function of the same name on > some archs). I did "make check-all" + ran a few internal Intel tests. What is the best way to test compiler-rt with my changes? Andrey http://reviews.llvm.org/D10187 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
